The primary reason that people have moved away from Perry is his stance on in-state tuition for illegal immigrants, known as the Texas DREAM Act. If not for this issue, Perry would likely still be riding high in first place in the polls. Well, his mediocre debate performances didn’t help either.

First, let me acknowledge that I like Rick Perry. While I have not yet settled on a candidate, he’s my current favorite. Well, my favorite was Tim Pawlenty, but he dropped out in August. And my true favorite, Bobby Jindal, didn’t even run.

Nevertheless, there are many candidates from which pro-life and pro-family Catholics can choice. I just hope people will not automatically reject Rick Perry solely on the issue of in-state tuition for illegals.

Here are the six reasons why I think Perry’s support for the Texas DREAM Act shouldn’t be a dealbreaker:

1. It was for Texas only.

As Rick Perry said in the debate, he supports the Texas DREAM Act, which he signed into law in 2001. The law charges illegal immigrants tuition at the same rate as Texas citizens. When the Texas Legislature voted on this measure back in 2001, there were 177 yes votes. Only four voted no. The bill had strong and wide bipartisan support. Even a supermajority of conservatives supported the measure. But Rick Perry does not support the federal DREAM Act, which also included some amnesty provisions. He believes the decision on what to charge in-state tuition should be left to the states.

2. The charge “It’s not fair!” cuts both ways.

I’m sympathetic when people say, “Why do you charge me out-of-state tuition when I was born in Oklahoma, but you charge him in-state tuition and he entered this country illegally?” Yet, it’s important to note that this fairness argument cuts both ways. What if a child is born in Neuvo Laredo, Mexico, but he entered this country illegally with his family when he was just two years old? He’s been living in Texas for 16 years now and the federal government hasn’t deported him and his family. Truly Texas is all he has known. Had he entered the country a couple years earlier, the point would be moot as he’d be a citizen of the United States by birthright. The people of Texas have decided it’s fair to charge him tuition at in-state rates. If the people of Texas want to extend that in-state tuition rate to Oklahomans they can. But, for better or for worse, these illegal immigrants live in their cities and towns. Perhaps charging illegals in-state tuition helps keep the peace. After all, I don’t think Texans are worried about Oklahomans taking to the streets of Houston.

3. It is not welfare; they still pay tuition.

There are lots of Americans upset that our social safety net is being strained by the demands of people who are not U.S. citizens. America is perhaps one of the only countries that confers citizenship to every person born on U.S. soil. This definitely complicates the matter. Nevertheless, children of illegal immigrants do not receive a free college ride because of the Texas DREAM Act. They must still pay tuition.

4. Illegals pay a lot of taxes in Texas.

Like every time they buy anything. Yes, the state university system in Texas is subsidized by tax dollars. But Texas is one of only seven states that have no state income tax. That means the funds going to higher education come primarily through sales taxes, which every person living in Texas pays whether they are a citizen or not. If the people of Texas, through their elected officials, decide to charge all people (citizen or illegal) the same rate for tuition that’s their right. But illegal immigrants in Texas have been paying taxes in Texas while people in Oklahoma have not.

5. The impact has not been disruptive

The Dallas Morning News noted that in 2009, illegal immigrants using the in-state tuition rate counted for just 1% of the state’s one million college students. The Wall Street Journal discovered that adding illegal immigrants and charging them in-state tuition rates was budget neutral. So the Texas DREAM Act has not been a financial burden for the taxpayers of Texas.

6. Texas and Rick Perry are not to blame for immigration mess

Our elected officials in Washington have turned a blind eye to the consequences of having millions of persons enter our country illegally. There is reason to believe that both political parties are unwilling to solve this problem. Perhaps Republicans want cheap labor and Democrats want more votes. Either way, border states like Texas are forced to deal with the consequences more so than, say, states like West Virginia. So I’m sympathetic when Texans say they have chosen to deal with this issue differently than say Alabama.

Just like Rick Perry, I do not support the federal DREAM Act. But if I were a member of the Texas Legislature, I would have joined with the 177 Legislators that voted yes.

There are many reasons to support Rick Perry. And there are many reasons to not support him and choose Santorum or someone else. But if you were inclined to support Rick Perry for his strong 10-year pro-life and pro-family record as Governor of Texas, but changed your mind because of the Texas DREAM Act, I think you should reconsider.

Eighteen Catholic colleges united in a letter to oppose the federal government’s contraception mandate and the lack of religious liberty in the mandate. The letter said: “No federal rule has defined being ‘religious’ as narrowly and discriminatorily as the Mandate appears to do, and no regulation has ever so directly proposed to violate plain statutory and constitutional religious freedoms.” The letter was organized by the Cardinal Newman Society. http://cvote.to/4v

Texas Gov. Rick Perry does damage control and apologizes for calling ‘heartless’ those who oppose the Texas DREAM Act he signed into law in 2001. The law gives in-state tuition to those who entered the country illegally but currently reside in Texas. “I was probably a bit over-passionate by using that word and it was inappropriate,” Perry admitted. “In Texas in 2001 we had 181 members of the legislature – only four voted against this piece of legislation – because it wasn’t about immigration it was about education.” http://cvote.to/4u Glad to see him apologize. It’s offensive to attack those who oppose your policy as being ‘heartless.’

Perhaps trying to help Rick Perry, Family Research Council head Tony Perkins questioned Mitt Romney on social issues. “He is not speaking as strongly to the social issues as he did four years ago,” said Perkins. “I think that if he is to emerge as the front-runner and the standard bearer for conservatives, he’s going to have to shore that up.” Glad to see Perkins holding the candidates accountable on pro-life and pro-family principles. http://cvote.to/4t

Other articles of interest:

Republicans are excited about the 2012 elections. Democrats not so much. http://cvote.to/4s

Archbishop Philip Hannah, the 11th archbishop of New Orleans, died this morning. He was 98. Rocco has a write-up on his amazing life story. http://cvote.to/4r

Catholicism, the amazing documentary by Fr. Robert Barron, is showing on PBS stations across the country. http://cvote.to/4q

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush defended Gov. Rick Perry’s support for in-state tuition for illegal immigrants. “I think that is a fair policy,” Bush said in an e-mail to National Journal on Tuesday, adding that the students who benefit from the tuition breaks find themselves in the United States through “no fault of their own.” National Journal notes that Sen. Marco Rubio, hero to many conservatives, also supported Florida’s version of the DREAM Act. http://cvote.to/4f

Speaking of Florida, the Sunshine State is threatening to make Christmas miserable for political reporters and presidential candidates by moving their primary up to Jan. 31, which could have a domino effect and make New Hampshire and Iowa to move their primary and caucus to December. http://cvote.to/4g

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie received a standing ovation and thunderous applause at the Ronald Reagan Library last night for a speech that including references to foreign policy. Despite many categorical no’s earlier this year, he didn’t out right rule out a presidential campaign in 2012, but it still seems unlikely he will run. http://cvote.to/4d Note: I listened to the speech last night and it was outstanding. Of course, if he decided to run, the public swooning by conservatives over Christie would immediately change and he’d face criticism over his stance on cap and trade, civil unions and other issues. http://cvote.to/4e Nonetheless, he remains a popular figure among conservatives for his no nonsense approach to reigning in spending in New Jersey.

Other articles of interest:

With his presidential campaign over, Michigan Rep. Thaddeus McCotter’s now faces a primary challenge in the 11th District. State Sen. Mike Kowall announced this week he’s challenging McCotter for the GOP nomination. http://cvote.to/4h

Matt Archbold slices through the myth of the “personally pro-life” Catholic who supports abortion. http://cvote.to/4k

]]>http://www.catholicvote.org/reader-jeb-defends-perry-on-dream-act-florida-threatens-to-move-up-primary-christie-wows-at-reagan-library/feed/10The DREAM would become a nightmare.http://www.catholicvote.org/the-dream-would-become-a-nightmare/
http://www.catholicvote.org/the-dream-would-become-a-nightmare/#commentsFri, 19 Aug 2011 12:42:37 +0000Tom Crowehttp://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=19984The immigration system is horribly flawed. No one disputes that. But the prayer campaign on behalf of the DREAM Act being pushed by the Justice for Immigrants campaign at the USCCB just isn’t wise.

The DREAM Act would not address the real problems with our immigration system, would exacerbate some already existing problems, and would cause new tensions. The bill has gone through a number of different forms, but they all include some combination of the following significant problems.

It would not make any difference for illegal immigrants who join the military. The laws on the books already expedite their citizenship process.

It would grant in-state college tuition to illegal immigrants. Which means they would get a benefit not afforded to either everyday law-abiding U.S. citizens, or foreign nationals who come on a student visa.

It would forbid law enforcement from using any information in an amnesty application from being used to initiate deportation proceedings. An applicant could lie about his age or any of a number of things, and the fact of his deliberately lying to the federal government could not be counted against him by law enforcement. Again, that’s a luxury not afforded citizens. Try lying on your tax forms next year and see where that gets you.

It would grant bureaucrats, up to and including the secretary of Homeland Defense, the ability to waive certain requirements, like the requirement to go to college or join the military, if the deportation would impose a hardship on the family. Talk about an infinitely expanding loophole—in what circumstances, exactly, would thedeportation of a given member of a family *not* pose an undue burden?

Again, the immigration system in place is horribly flawed and needs to be fixed so that those who wish to come here to work, participate in, and contribute to the American experiment can do so with a minimum of necessary protections. But simply granting amnesty to anywhere from 300,000 to 2.1 million illegal immigrants, and compounding the problem by granting them protections and benefits far beyond those enjoyed by lawful residents will not solve the problem.

I pray that the Justice for Immigrants campaign’s prayer campaign is answered by God with a fixed immigration system, not counterproductive laws like the DREAM Act.